Without a name or much else by way of context, I am going to have to treat this at face value;
a) being here may be the result of decision I made where the outcome was not clear, misunderstood or unanticipated. This could be the result of my shortcomings b) being here may be the result of havnig some drive to resolve certain issues in my life and eeking opportunities to do so (karma, if you will) c) being here might be the result of events over which I have only slight control and be largely beyond my influence
other possibilities exist, including unconscious destructive urges but at the moment I think the first three most likely. Determining which (or in what proportion they exist) is something I am working through as understanding this will help me move past here, avoid returning and possibly take some good from this place with me.
to answer the (possibly) implied question 'why don't you choose to be elsewhere?' -
a) simply treating anything painful as something to be avoided and making the reduction of pain a primary motivation is dangerous. b) I would prefer to choose (as best I can) the direction in which I travel from here, if not the destination. That will, necessarily, take time and that implies remaining in this state. c) I don't yet know why I am here, simply leaving does little to help me avoid here in the future
Re: why? Answer...anothertwilightMarch 14 2004, 16:16:17 UTC
a) You can't choose something different until you have sucked every last drop of pain from your current place. b) You can't make a decision and are stalling for time (and maybe sympathy or pity). c) To mis-quote "You don't yet know why you arrived in Spain, simply leaving does not help avoid Spain in the future." More bullshit excuses. Simply leaving does help you avoid it right now, does assist you knowing where you really want to go, and has nothing to do with making reduction of pain your primary motive...
While I get the feeling I am feeding a troll, this is proving a useful means of clarifying my thoughts, so;
with regards to your response to a) - equating "[not] making the reduction of pain a primary motivation" and "suck[ing] every last drop of pain" is facile. You seem unable to consider that there exists an alternative to pain avoidance that is not a desire for pain or are deliberately trying to polarise these statements.
with regards to your response to b) - 'Stalling' implies some kind of deadline, an authority or timeframe. To whom or what do you suggest I am responsible? If I want more time, then what is stopping me taking it? Unless I am missing something, this is ludicrous.
with regards to your response to c) - your mis-quote over-simplifies. By categorising my current state as 'Spain' you presuppose that my state is (well) known. A significant portion of my current concern is determining 'where' my current state is. - claiming that "leaving does help you avoid it right now" is a straw-man argument. My concern is over avoiding recurrence, not simple avoidance. - "does assist you knowing where you really want to go" is only true (as far as I can tell) if what you are proposing is a kind of 'suck it and see' approach. I would prefer reason to reaction, and to take the time to understand what is going on before making decisions. Would you care to dignify this with a argument or explanation? - your "has nothing to do with making reduction of pain your primary motive" is unsupported by anything, not even a reason. Even if I were to accept it without argument, given that my concerns over my current state are that it is painful and familiar what motive is there for leaving that is _not_ the elevation of pain-reduction to primacy? The only way this makes sense is by the introduction of some as yet unmentioned motive.
About the only elements of this that are not flimsy, superficial or poorly reasoned are;
- "You can't make a decision ..." - yes, I know, that is in fact what _I_ said. And then went on to discuss. and - "and maybe sympathy or pity" - which you had the grace to qualify with a 'maybe' given its unsupported nature.
In general this is confused, superficial and poorly reasoned (where it is reasoned at all).
Care to add a name to this or is the shame too much?
Re: why? Answer...anothertwilightMarch 15 2004, 14:01:34 UTC
A well-reasoned and logical response. Unfortunately, you will be unable to give a logical and reasoned expression of why you are where you currently are. (Although I'd like to see you try - I'm sure you have already tried).
You have obviously spent years learning and mastering reason. You seem to be using that invested time both as a defence mechanism and as a means to justify your continued neurosis. In fact, I'm sure you use that same reasoning to attack friends, family and therapists attempting to help you. Dragging these same people into an argument so you can avoid dealing with your problem. Thus alienating them (see initial symptom) and ensuring you are beyond help...
Re: why? Answer...anothertwilightMarch 15 2004, 21:30:29 UTC
> A well-reasoned and logical response.
To better contrast the rather emotive and impassioned post of yours.
> Unfortunately, you will be unable to give a logical and reasoned > expression of why you are where you currently are.
I love these pronouncements of yours. Hot tip; presuming profundity is usually considered arrogant. We mortals respond better when you deign to explain.
> (Although I'd like to see you try - I'm sure you have already tried).
As I mentioned in my first reply to you. Glad to see you are keeping up.
> You have obviously spent years learning and mastering reason.
… and hence finding its limitations. Reason and logic are a tool. My oldest and most familiar and the one to which I turn first, I'll own, but not my only tool. I consider it the lowest common denominator for meaningful communication (you can get lower, but run into problems with presumptions, you can get higher but need more common framework) which is one reason I am using it nearly exclusively here and less so in other responses where I _do_ have more in common with the respondents.
> You seem to be using that invested time both as a defence mechanism > and as a means to justify your continued neurosis.
I win the bet. I predicted the pop-psych next. Thanks, I owe you a lunch.
Can you describe _how_ I am using reason (your sentence actually says I am using time, but I think you meant reason) to 'justify my continued neurosis'?
> In fact, I'm sure you use that same reasoning to attack friends, > family and therapists attempting to help you. Dragging these same > people into an argument so you can avoid dealing with your problem. > Thus alienating them (see initial symptom) and ensuring you are > beyond help...
Ah, so I am not only using reason to justify my neurosis, I am using it to perpetuate it and to attack those who would help me. Truly my use of reason is evil.
Wow, and that would mean that my previous post can safely be ignored, because with you cast as the friend (surely not therapist) trying to help me, then all my reason is undone as my motive is simply to 'drag you into an argument'. And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those damn kids.
> Yours with amused sincerity, Anonymous
Truly amusement is infectious.
Abandoning my hope for dialogue I shall join you instead;
Hmm, let's see, familiarity with psych terminology, quick to offer diagnosis and the grouping of 'therapist' with 'family and friends' - sounds almost classically American, but then, you know how to spell 'defence' so I will spare you that calumny. I'll guess a little more conservatively and pick someone who has, themselves, been in and out of therapy. That would make sense of the comment you made about stalling.
"Bullshit excuses" is challenged. The challenge is avoided with flattery, ie "A well reasoned ... response" but that is undermined by attacking reason itself. It does not speak of a person firm in their conviction. It seems almost insecure. This impression is bolstered by the attempt at superiority evinced by the condescending tone.
Accusations of being desirous of pain, of using avoidance techniques to remain ill, of using illness to elicit sympathy/pity are interesting, especially considering your demonstrated facility with avoidance. Hello, Pot. Is that you?
Hollow rhetoric is often the sign of an intellectual bully, certainly you seem ill prepared to having your arguments challenged. Is it that you are one of those who are intelligent enough to have gotten lazy and are more used to a comfortable gap 'twixt you and those with whom you normally interact or are you just overreaching yourself?
So, to return the favour, I would advise that you return to therapy or pull the finger out and do the work 'cos it ain't over yet. No need to convince me of your success and superiority, it isn't my demon. Relax regarding reason; yes it is a two edged sword but as you get more competent it gets less scary and you don't have to second guess yourself so much. Meditate more. It will help with both the confidence and humility.
More seriously, thanks for the chuckle. I can only hope my sincerity matches yours.
Re: why? Answer...anothertwilightMarch 16 2004, 14:04:59 UTC
You say you are finding the limitations of reason, yet, seem to be unable to stop using it (despite statements to the opposite). Specifically, you stated "...this is proving a useful means of clarifying my thoughts..." And then spent some time using reason to describe and express your thinking. Prove to me, through your writing, not just your words, that you have other methods (or tools, as you describe it with detachment) to express your emotion.
Re: why? Answer...anothertwilightMarch 16 2004, 16:39:35 UTC
*laugh* I also said it was the LCD of communication, but you seem to skip what you don't understand.
You demand I 'prove' I have tools other than reason. The process of 'proof' is one of reason. Your demand is ... amusing.
Now, re-read my last reply.
I mock, I tease, I play. You seemed uncomfortable with reason, so I leavened it with irony, parody and even a little humour. I had fun and have pointed it out to several people with a sense of pride. I liked it.
You missed it as an example of what you demand. My problem or your limitation?
I should not be surprised, you have an opinion you are barely able to articulate and have been unable to substantiate to _any_ degree. Rather than remedy this, you choose instead to attack my ability to do both and ignore anything that challenges you or your position.
This is pitiable, it really is. Is there someone you can get to help you with this?
Re: why? Answer...anothertwilightMarch 17 2004, 16:05:00 UTC
I’ve apparently missed the humour, irony and parody you take so much pride in. I also missed the pride you take in articulating a witty, well-reasoned comeback that defends your position and attacks mine. Having seen your responses here and on other lj posts I know this is your basic response. You have even stated this is your first response.
Regardless of what you think of this interaction - it is a mirror that exposes the soft delicate inside your initial post. To recall - “part of it is simply that terrible sense of living in a cage of one's own self, forever doomed to incomplete communication and partial connection”. Chances are this communication, what you feel towards me, and towards this post as you read it, is the same when you meet someone new, the same when you deal with friends or family.
Why not use that intelligence of yours and discover where this communication failed. Where it disconnected. When, or maybe if, you discover where, you’ll discover how to be on the inside, looking out.
I have maybe 30 minutes invested in this conversation. You have invested the time you have spent, plus your ego, some of the value you have in your friends eyes, and maybe even your entire personality. Will you spend a few minutes attempting to learn something of value, or will you continue stay alone in your ivory tower?
Re: why? Answer...anothertwilightMarch 17 2004, 17:23:56 UTC
>"that defends your position and attacks mine"
No, I am not going to tolerate this. I took your initial post/s as being concerned and sincere. You responded by becoming increasingly aggressive. This is a charge I laid at your feet. I will not accept you levelling it at me in return. You have now devolved into a childish 'it's not me, it's you'.
> Chances are this communication, what you feel towards me, and towards this post as you read it, is the same when you meet someone new, the same when you deal with friends or family.
True, an initial presumption of sincerity and care, an extension of trust, an attempt to accede to your requests and demands in the interests of building communication. Then as it becomes clear that you are inherently self-serving I withdraw those courtesies I extended. Yes, this does mirror a number of my interactions, up to and including my withdrawal in the face of abuse.
>Why not use that intelligence of yours and discover where this communication failed. Where it disconnected. When, or maybe if, you discover where, you'll discover how to be on the inside, looking out.
Here, it broke down when you refused to meet me part way; to answer questions instead of just posing them; to give of yourself instead of sitting smugly behind your veneer of anonymity and distance. I gave of myself in answering your initial question and those that followed. You have yet to give anything except your condescension.
The only insight this offers is that if I am prepared to accept such ill use, then some will accept me.
Been there, made friends that walked all over me and grew wroth when I objected.
If that is what you offer then I reject it. I will move on and continue to seek those who match generosity for generosity, truth for truth and who have the courage to remove their masks.
>I have maybe 30 minutes invested in this conversation. You have invested the time you have spent, plus your ego, some of the value you have in your friends eyes, and maybe even your entire personality.
I have invested time in this, far more than your thirty minutes just in considering your words and weighing my reply. My ego is a lighter investment - show me something new, even show me that I am incorrect, I am long past linking my sense of worth to being 'right'. The thing is, you do not meet me on any level.
Not in the effort I have put into this, not in the attempt at understanding, not in the levels of compromise that are necessary for equal communication.
I have struggled to find worth in your words, but they lack truth, beauty or usefulness. You have exhibited no care, and your 'maybe 30 minutes' speaks volumes of even the investment of your time. You will not even extend to me the courtesy of your name, yet you want me to listen to you, to trust what you say.
> Will you spend a few minutes
Do not belittle the time I have already given you, nor the effort I have made in trying to understand what you are doing.
> attempting to learn something of value, or will you continue stay alone in your ivory tower?
I will presume that what has occurred is an initial misunderstanding that has resulted in confrontation and try again. Will you meet me half way in this, at least?
With the above presumption, I _have_ misunderstood what you suggest and offer. I have tried to explain why, albeit in a fashion that offended you. How, then, can I convey to you that what you are trying to teach seems to make no sense?
My process of learning involves being able to examine new material to try and understand it. I am prepared to accept some things on faith, to believe without recourse to proof or reason, but you can understand, I hope, that this is not something I do lightly nor often and to expect it of me (if you do) is, literally, unreasonable.
With that as a given, then, I _do_ apply reason to new material. I ask questions, and find that silence when I expect a response speaks as loudly as an answer does. Am I able to question your offering?
a) being here may be the result of decision I made where the outcome was not clear, misunderstood or unanticipated. This could be the result of my shortcomings
b) being here may be the result of havnig some drive to resolve certain issues in my life and eeking opportunities to do so (karma, if you will)
c) being here might be the result of events over which I have only slight control and be largely beyond my influence
other possibilities exist, including unconscious destructive urges but at the moment I think the first three most likely. Determining which (or in what proportion they exist) is something I am working through as understanding this will help me move past here, avoid returning and possibly take some good from this place with me.
to answer the (possibly) implied question 'why don't you choose to be elsewhere?' -
a) simply treating anything painful as something to be avoided and making the reduction of pain a primary motivation is dangerous.
b) I would prefer to choose (as best I can) the direction in which I travel from here, if not the destination. That will, necessarily, take time and that implies remaining in this state.
c) I don't yet know why I am here, simply leaving does little to help me avoid here in the future
Reply
b) You can't make a decision and are stalling for time (and maybe sympathy or pity).
c) To mis-quote "You don't yet know why you arrived in Spain, simply leaving does not help avoid Spain in the future." More bullshit excuses. Simply leaving does help you avoid it right now, does assist you knowing where you really want to go, and has nothing to do with making reduction of pain your primary motive...
Reply
Oversimplification/polarisation. Oh, and hyperbole.
>b) You can't make a decision and are stalling for time (and maybe sympathy or pity).
Nonsensical.
>c) To mis-quote "You don't yet know why you arrived in Spain, simply leaving does not help avoid Spain in the future."
Another oversimplification.
> More bullshit excuses.
Abusive; have I offended you in person/some past life?
> Simply leaving does help you avoid it right now,
Straw-man
> does assist you knowing where you really want to go,
Assertion
> and has nothing to do with making reduction of pain your primary motive...
Simple contradiction, no argument, no reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I get the feeling I am feeding a troll, this is proving a useful means of clarifying my thoughts, so;
with regards to your response to a) - equating "[not] making the reduction of pain a primary motivation" and "suck[ing] every last drop of pain" is facile. You seem unable to consider that there exists an alternative to pain avoidance that is not a desire for pain or are deliberately trying to polarise these statements.
with regards to your response to b) - 'Stalling' implies some kind of deadline, an authority or timeframe. To whom or what do you suggest I am responsible? If I want more time, then what is stopping me taking it? Unless I am missing something, this is ludicrous.
with regards to your response to c) - your mis-quote over-simplifies. By categorising my current state as 'Spain' you presuppose that my state is (well) known. A significant portion of my current concern is determining 'where' my current state is.
- claiming that "leaving does help you avoid it right now" is a straw-man argument. My concern is over avoiding recurrence, not simple avoidance.
- "does assist you knowing where you really want to go" is only true (as far as I can tell) if what you are proposing is a kind of 'suck it and see' approach. I would prefer reason to reaction, and to take the time to understand what is going on before making decisions. Would you care to dignify this with a argument or explanation?
- your "has nothing to do with making reduction of pain your primary motive" is unsupported by anything, not even a reason. Even if I were to accept it without argument, given that my concerns over my current state are that it is painful and familiar what motive is there for leaving that is _not_ the elevation of pain-reduction to primacy? The only way this makes sense is by the introduction of some as yet unmentioned motive.
About the only elements of this that are not flimsy, superficial or poorly reasoned are;
- "You can't make a decision ..." - yes, I know, that is in fact what _I_ said. And then went on to discuss.
and
- "and maybe sympathy or pity" - which you had the grace to qualify with a 'maybe' given its unsupported nature.
In general this is confused, superficial and poorly reasoned (where it is reasoned at all).
Care to add a name to this or is the shame too much?
Reply
You have obviously spent years learning and mastering reason. You seem to be using that invested time both as a defence mechanism and as a means to justify your continued neurosis. In fact, I'm sure you use that same reasoning to attack friends, family and therapists attempting to help you. Dragging these same people into an argument so you can avoid dealing with your problem. Thus alienating them (see initial symptom) and ensuring you are beyond help...
Yours with amused sincerity,
Anonymous
Reply
To better contrast the rather emotive and impassioned post of yours.
> Unfortunately, you will be unable to give a logical and reasoned
> expression of why you are where you currently are.
I love these pronouncements of yours. Hot tip; presuming profundity is usually considered arrogant. We mortals respond better when you deign to explain.
> (Although I'd like to see you try - I'm sure you have already tried).
As I mentioned in my first reply to you. Glad to see you are keeping up.
> You have obviously spent years learning and mastering reason.
… and hence finding its limitations. Reason and logic are a tool. My oldest and most familiar and the one to which I turn first, I'll own, but not my only tool. I consider it the lowest common denominator for meaningful communication (you can get lower, but run into problems with presumptions, you can get higher but need more common framework) which is one reason I am using it nearly exclusively here and less so in other responses where I _do_ have more in common with the respondents.
> You seem to be using that invested time both as a defence mechanism
> and as a means to justify your continued neurosis.
I win the bet. I predicted the pop-psych next. Thanks, I owe you a lunch.
Can you describe _how_ I am using reason (your sentence actually says I am using time, but I think you meant reason) to 'justify my continued neurosis'?
> In fact, I'm sure you use that same reasoning to attack friends,
> family and therapists attempting to help you. Dragging these same
> people into an argument so you can avoid dealing with your problem.
> Thus alienating them (see initial symptom) and ensuring you are
> beyond help...
Ah, so I am not only using reason to justify my neurosis, I am using it to perpetuate it and to attack those who would help me. Truly my use of reason is evil.
Wow, and that would mean that my previous post can safely be ignored, because with you cast as the friend (surely not therapist) trying to help me, then all my reason is undone as my motive is simply to 'drag you into an argument'. And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those damn kids.
> Yours with amused sincerity, Anonymous
Truly amusement is infectious.
Abandoning my hope for dialogue I shall join you instead;
Hmm, let's see, familiarity with psych terminology, quick to offer diagnosis and the grouping of 'therapist' with 'family and friends' - sounds almost classically American, but then, you know how to spell 'defence' so I will spare you that calumny. I'll guess a little more conservatively and pick someone who has, themselves, been in and out of therapy. That would make sense of the comment you made about stalling.
"Bullshit excuses" is challenged. The challenge is avoided with flattery, ie "A well reasoned ... response" but that is undermined by attacking reason itself. It does not speak of a person firm in their conviction. It seems almost insecure. This impression is bolstered by the attempt at superiority evinced by the condescending tone.
Accusations of being desirous of pain, of using avoidance techniques to remain ill, of using illness to elicit sympathy/pity are interesting, especially considering your demonstrated facility with avoidance. Hello, Pot. Is that you?
Hollow rhetoric is often the sign of an intellectual bully, certainly you seem ill prepared to having your arguments challenged. Is it that you are one of those who are intelligent enough to have gotten lazy and are more used to a comfortable gap 'twixt you and those with whom you normally interact or are you just overreaching yourself?
So, to return the favour, I would advise that you return to therapy or pull the finger out and do the work 'cos it ain't over yet. No need to convince me of your success and superiority, it isn't my demon. Relax regarding reason; yes it is a two edged sword but as you get more competent it gets less scary and you don't have to second guess yourself so much. Meditate more. It will help with both the confidence and humility.
More seriously, thanks for the chuckle. I can only hope my sincerity matches yours.
Reply
Prove to me, through your writing, not just your words, that you have other methods (or tools, as you describe it with detachment) to express your emotion.
Reply
I also said it was the LCD of communication, but you seem to skip what you don't understand.
You demand I 'prove' I have tools other than reason. The process of 'proof' is one of reason. Your demand is ... amusing.
Now, re-read my last reply.
I mock, I tease, I play. You seemed uncomfortable with reason, so I leavened it with irony, parody and even a little humour. I had fun and have pointed it out to several people with a sense of pride. I liked it.
You missed it as an example of what you demand. My problem or your limitation?
I should not be surprised, you have an opinion you are barely able to articulate and have been unable to substantiate to _any_ degree. Rather than remedy this, you choose instead to attack my ability to do both and ignore anything that challenges you or your position.
This is pitiable, it really is. Is there someone you can get to help you with this?
Reply
Regardless of what you think of this interaction - it is a mirror that exposes the soft delicate inside your initial post. To recall - “part of it is simply that terrible sense of living in a cage of one's own self, forever doomed to incomplete communication and partial connection”. Chances are this communication, what you feel towards me, and towards this post as you read it, is the same when you meet someone new, the same when you deal with friends or family.
Why not use that intelligence of yours and discover where this communication failed. Where it disconnected. When, or maybe if, you discover where, you’ll discover how to be on the inside, looking out.
I have maybe 30 minutes invested in this conversation. You have invested the time you have spent, plus your ego, some of the value you have in your friends eyes, and maybe even your entire personality. Will you spend a few minutes attempting to learn something of value, or will you continue stay alone in your ivory tower?
Reply
No, I am not going to tolerate this. I took your initial post/s as being concerned and sincere. You responded by becoming increasingly aggressive. This is a charge I laid at your feet. I will not accept you levelling it at me in return. You have now devolved into a childish 'it's not me, it's you'.
> Chances are this communication, what you feel towards me, and towards this post as you read it, is the same when you meet someone new, the same when you deal with friends or family.
True, an initial presumption of sincerity and care, an extension of trust, an attempt to accede to your requests and demands in the interests of building communication. Then as it becomes clear that you are inherently self-serving I withdraw those courtesies I extended. Yes, this does mirror a number of my interactions, up to and including my withdrawal in the face of abuse.
>Why not use that intelligence of yours and discover where this communication failed. Where it disconnected. When, or maybe if, you discover where, you'll discover how to be on the inside, looking out.
Here, it broke down when you refused to meet me part way; to answer questions instead of just posing them; to give of yourself instead of sitting smugly behind your veneer of anonymity and distance. I gave of myself in answering your initial question and those that followed. You have yet to give anything except your condescension.
The only insight this offers is that if I am prepared to accept such ill use, then some will accept me.
Been there, made friends that walked all over me and grew wroth when I objected.
If that is what you offer then I reject it. I will move on and continue to seek those who match generosity for generosity, truth for truth and who have the courage to remove their masks.
>I have maybe 30 minutes invested in this conversation. You have invested the time you have spent, plus your ego, some of the value you have in your friends eyes, and maybe even your entire personality.
I have invested time in this, far more than your thirty minutes just in considering your words and weighing my reply. My ego is a lighter investment - show me something new, even show me that I am incorrect, I am long past linking my sense of worth to being 'right'. The thing is, you do not meet me on any level.
Not in the effort I have put into this, not in the attempt at understanding, not in the levels of compromise that are necessary for equal communication.
I have struggled to find worth in your words, but they lack truth, beauty or usefulness. You have exhibited no care, and your 'maybe 30 minutes' speaks volumes of even the investment of your time. You will not even extend to me the courtesy of your name, yet you want me to listen to you, to trust what you say.
> Will you spend a few minutes
Do not belittle the time I have already given you, nor the effort I have made in trying to understand what you are doing.
> attempting to learn something of value, or will you continue stay alone in your ivory tower?
I will presume that what has occurred is an initial misunderstanding that has resulted in confrontation and try again. Will you meet me half way in this, at least?
With the above presumption, I _have_ misunderstood what you suggest and offer. I have tried to explain why, albeit in a fashion that offended you. How, then, can I convey to you that what you are trying to teach seems to make no sense?
My process of learning involves being able to examine new material to try and understand it. I am prepared to accept some things on faith, to believe without recourse to proof or reason, but you can understand, I hope, that this is not something I do lightly nor often and to expect it of me (if you do) is, literally, unreasonable.
With that as a given, then, I _do_ apply reason to new material. I ask questions, and find that silence when I expect a response speaks as loudly as an answer does. Am I able to question your offering?
Reply
Leave a comment